Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit A- 1040_1050_Matchless Drive_Variance Review Criteria Exhibit A –Variance Review Criteria Chapter 26.314, Variance A. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the appropriate decision-making body shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of this Title and the Municipal Code; and Staff Findings: The purpose of the City’s land use code not only protects the public’s health, safety, and welfare, but also identifies a property’s rights which includes reasonable expectations for property owners. Staff believes a reasonable expectation is that zoning limitations are observed and enforced as uniformly as practicable. Staff finds this criterion not met. 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and Staff Findings: Though the variance request to establish between 6” and 0’ setbacks on the property is the minimum necessary to construct the proposed garages and accomplish turning movements, the Lots have been in reasonably use since originally developed with duplexes in the 1970’s . Staff finds this criterion not met. 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere inconvenience. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the Board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or Staff Findings: This section highlights a distinct difference between causing an Applicant “unnecessary hardship” in contrast to the creation of a “mere inconvenience”. In consideration of this Code language, it should be noted that the properties’ development rights are currently being exercised in the form of legally constructed duplex dwelling units developed in the mid- 1970’s. Garages, while identified as permitted uses within the R-6 zone district and which commonly exist in the vicinity of the subject properties, are accessory to a principal use of land and do not carry the same development right quality as a dwelling unit. As such, a distinction exists between the grant of a variance that would otherwise inhibit the properties’ development rights for a principal use of land in contrast to a variance for non-setback compliant accessory structures. Denial of the requested front, side, and rear setback variances for accessory garages, retaining walls, and trash/recycling structures will not deny the properties’ fundamental development rights or cause an unnecessary hardship, though denial may result in an inconvenience to the Applicant. Additionally, Staff is concerned that a special circumstance or condition does not exist on the property to warrant the finding of a hardship. The Applicant has argued that a hardship has resulted from the siting of the existing duplex development at the center of the Lots which, in turn, has constrained the properties. The Applicant argues that the placement of these duplexes dictates that the proposed garages be sited 6” from the northern property boundaries to accomplish satisfactory turning radiuses and vehicle movements. The Land Use Code stipulates that actions of the Applicant, which includes previous development, is not justification for the grant of a variance and cannot be used to make a finding of a hardship. Staff finds this criterion not met. b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied the terms of this Title and the Municipal Code to other parcels, buildings or structures, in the same zone district. Staff Findings: Staff finds that should the BOA make a finding that a hardship exists on the property and that a variance is warranted, the Applicant will not attain any special privilege that would otherwise be denied by this Code, when compared to other parcels within this zone district. A finding of a hardship was identified for the properties in 2000. Staff finds this criterion conditionally met.